rh18 wrote in post #18733158Moon from last night with first attempt using Registax6. (Trying to get some practice in before the Lunar eclipse in January.) I wasn't really planning on trying stacking when I was taking the pictures but after getting slightly depressed seeing all the great shots in this thread , I thought I'd give it a try. So this stack is only 7 frames (and I had a heck of a time getting Registax to work with only that - kept freezing during the Align step). I ended up using PPIP to center and crop the images and then it worked. If anyone has any tips on that, I'd love to hear them. (For instances, how many frames should you normally try to get for stacking?)

Shot at 400mm on an 80D with the 100-400 v1, so it's heavily cropped. Also toned it a little in LR.

I remember now why I could not recall that Registax does stacking for you...... its because I had problems with it. Try stacking with Autostakkert!3 (with the PIPP cropped images) .... just google it, its also a free program and it works REALLY well. And then process the stack like usual in Registax - can't give you any tips on that though - I have not used it for a long time.

For how many to stack, well more is better assuming all are good! LOL For clean sharp images with little detail drifting only a few will give you a nicer looking pic. For less than perfect conditions.... at least 20. 40 better... and 100+ is what I do these days usually. Hopefully Martin can chime in for better feedback! (Note - if Martin (wiseimaging) ever says anything contrary to what I do - go with what HE says! )

WestCoastCannuck wrote in post #18733305I remember now why I could not recall that Registax does stacking for you...... its because I had problems with it. Try stacking with Autostakkert!3 (with the PIPP cropped images) .... just google it, its also a free program and it works REALLY well. And then process the stack like usual in Registax - can't give you any tips on that though - I have not used it for a long time.

For how many to stack, well more is better assuming all are good! LOL For clean sharp images with little detail drifting only a few will give you a nicer looking pic. For less than perfect conditions.... at least 20. 40 better... and 100+ is what I do these days usually. Hopefully Martin can chime in for better feedback! (Note - if Martin (wiseimaging) ever says anything contrary to what I do - go with what HE says! )

Thanks for the tips on the number of frames to grab. I took a little over 100 last night, so I'll give AutoStakkert a go and see what I come up with. Oh, and what are you using for the final processing if you're not using Registax?

rh18 wrote in post #18734066Thanks for the tips on the number of frames to grab. I took a little over 100 last night, so I'll give AutoStakkert a go and see what I come up with. Oh, and what are you using for the final processing if you're not using Registax?

Hi.... There are lots of tutorials out there for using all this stuff - that is where I started. I will find a couple for you if you have no luck! Thing is... you only want to stack the best files - not all of them. So you must set PIPP to arrange in order of quality - and drop at least a few of the bottom ones - unless they are all great! (like all over 96%) I use the default quality sorting myself.

Instead of Registax, I use an astro program called Astra Image. On an impulse, I bought it two or three years ago since I found Registax too difficult to figure out (lol). And since I paid for it, I stuck with it - I like it now though frankly it was not much easier at first!!

WestCoastCannuck wrote in post #18734220Hi.... There are lots of tutorials out there for using all this stuff - that is where I started. I will find a couple for you if you have no luck! Thing is... you only want to stack the best files - not all of them. So you must set PIPP to arrange in order of quality - and drop at least a few of the bottom ones - unless they are all great! (like all over 96%) I use the default quality sorting myself.

Instead of Registax, I use an astro program called Astra Image. On an impulse, I bought it two or three years ago since I found Registax too difficult to figure out (lol). And since I paid for it, I stuck with it - I like it now though frankly it was not much easier at first!!

Thanks, I found a few tutorials on AutoStakkert + Registax after you mentioned AS. So here is the processed image from the photos I took last night (PIPP -> AS -> RS). It came out OK, I guess (maybe a little over-processed?).

rh18 wrote in post #18734600Thanks, I found a few tutorials on AutoStakkert + Registax after you mentioned AS. So here is the processed image from the photos I took last night (PIPP -> AS -> RS). It came out OK, I guess (maybe a little over-processed?).

It looks good! More processed looking than I go for... but for many this is ideal - really shows off the details. Its a matter of taste - and what you are trying to show. All I can really recommend is more of the same - try different settings and see what it comes out like! I still do the same - thing is, each stack is different and no one bunch of settings will work every time. LOL... a bit annoying that, but its the way it is. I always save screen shots of my settings I use for everything I do - maybe one day I will see a pattern that will be useful. haha

WestCoastCannuck wrote in post #18734644It looks good! More processed looking than I go for... but for many this is ideal - really shows off the details. Its a matter of taste - and what you are trying to show. All I can really recommend is more of the same - try different settings and see what it comes out like! I still do the same - thing is, each stack is different and no one bunch of settings will work every time. LOL... a bit annoying that, but its the way it is. I always save screen shots of my settings I use for everything I do - maybe one day I will see a pattern that will be useful. haha

Thanks! Practice, practice, practice, right? Yeah, I hear you on every one being different. I tried the same settings on this stack that I used a few days earlier and there was very little detail - I had to push it more. I like how it came out in general but I feel like the bottom-left edge is a bit overcooked. I guess you just have to find a balance in there. Or I could make two versions and blend them in Photoshop.

Stacking frames increases signal to noise, this is important if you're shooting at very high ISO values (or gain values depending on camera type) which reduces dynamic range. This allows you to recover shadow areas and some mid-tone areas that normally would be swamped with noise as you slightly under-expose those areas, or heavily under-expose those areas, due to preventing highlight clipping. This greatly depends on the phase of the moon obviously, but you don't want to clip highlights as that's losing data, but it generally costs you a lot of information lost in shadows and mid-tones near the terminator, again, depending on the phase of the moon. Stacking helps here so that when you lift shadows or increase midtones (such as with levels), it doesn't break apart into artifact and horrible noise, as the signal to noise radio is increased and the resulting dynamic range allows more processing limits. Stacking increases by the square root of the number of images in the stack. This means you have to stack a lot of frames for this to really help. Stacking 100 frames will net you 10 times the signal to noise. Not everyone wants to put that kind of mileage, or more, on their mechanical shutter. Keep that in mind. If you use your SLR in video mode, you can avoid the mechanical shutter.

Stacking also reduces random noise. It doesn't reduce static noise (static noise, or signal, is increased!). This is a great benefit for high resolution imagers. However, for most full disc imagers, this isn't a big deal because you're not having to use incredible amounts of high ISO (or gain) to achieve your exposures. But, that said, decreasing random noise is still a benefit in general. Keep in mind.

There are side effects to stacking. The more you stack, the more blur you introduce. Each frame is going to be slightly different, even when aligned. So you will induce blurring. Stacking a ton more, to increase signal to noise and reduce random noise will result in a very blurry image. This is where deconvolution comes in. Don't just try to sharpen these blurred images with typical sharpening techniques in Photoshop or an equivalent. You need to use something that can do deconvolution instead. Then, after that, do whatever sharpening routines you prefer to do. Software that can do this that is free include IMPPG (google it up, great software, simple to use). So that's the trade off. This is why you will often see a "sharper" image (which really just means higher contrast) from a single shot, but it may have more noise and be more difficult to process, compared to a more blurry stacked image (less contrast), but it will have more latitude for processing.

By the way, on the subject of sharpening, you can use your histogram to know if you've over-sharpened. Look for clipping highlights. If you have clipping highlights that are white and have no data, you've gone too far.

Just throwing it out there, because frankly, stacking and all this with still images from a dSLR at lower ISO values (already quite clean with plenty of dynamic range) for full disc, non-mosaics, is introducing more blur than not. And unless you're really pushing the histogram and lifting shadows in the craters, depending on the phase of course, you're not going to get much from this. This really is used more for higher resolution imaging, where you have amplified (noisy) signals and a lot more blur (due to seeing).

I really do see more detail in my stacks.... as well as a much nicer image to work with. But, then I AM using deconvolution routines in Astra Image. I had thought that Registax 6 also did this? (That rh18 is using) Are "wavelets" a type of deconvolution? I personally never liked the results from wavelets for my shots - I expect that wavelets work best for many, many images... like 1000+ ? Here is an example of what I typically do in Astra Image - before and after.

Someone else told me he can see the "Eagle", and he was meaning the flag, i think he was joking, but i am really happy that people telling me that my moon shots are sharp and smooth and crisp and whatever, i will work more on the moon different angles but i think i need to move on to another astro targets.

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is LYM462 guests, 362 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.